[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: <tribble>*Subject*: Tables*From*: Mark S. Miller <mark>*Date*: Sun, 22 Oct 89 21:43:45 PDT*Cc*: <heh>, <xtech>*In-reply-to*: <Eric>,32 PDT <8910220732.AA17177@xanadu>

Date: Sun, 22 Oct 89 00:32:32 PDT From: tribble (Eric Dean Tribble) Charming is our (weak) definition of contiguous - ask MarkM or Dean for details, but for all our early purposes, it works just fine. Charming is actually stronger than contiguous, in that all charming sets are contiguous, but not all contiguous sets are charming. ... Such that A>B and A>C. Note that {A,B,C} is charming, but so is {B,C}. You're correct neither is stronger than the other. In fact, we have all four cases. Charm still seems to be the right notion for runs. Perhaps a run must be both charming and contiguous? Charm still also equals contiguity on full orders. It gets even stranger when you notice that B and C would be a charming pair even if they both had branches. This is important when considering enclosures in a partial order, but it's a little wierd for trees. Not at all. It means that a run on a tree space is always representable as a set of mutually disjoint tree-regions (the "tree-regions" of the 88.2 talk), such that none is a tree-descendant of any of the others. Ok, this is a little wierd. At least it's well defined.

**References**:**Tables***From:*Eric Dean Tribble

- Prev by Date:
**CoordinateSpace** - Next by Date:
**TableView, UnaryFn** - Previous by thread:
**Tables** - Next by thread:
**Re: Tables** - Index(es):